RE: Alexander [ebxml-dev] 1/2/2003: Microsoft Refuses to support ebXML

[Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net>]

Duane Nickull gave a reference on a Canadian project that integrated
BizTalk.  He just answered the question.  Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fraser Goffin [mailto:goffinf@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:43 PM
To: Monica Martin
Cc: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: Alexander [ebxml-dev] 1/2/2003: Microsoft Refuses to
support ebXML


Any implementations on the Microsoft platform ?

Fraser.

>From: Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net>
>To: zack2@cris.com, Fraser Goffin <goffinf@hotmail.com>, 
>ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
>CC: ebXML Mkt Steering <ebxml-mktg-sc@lists.ebxml.org>
>Subject: Alexander [ebxml-dev] 1/2/2003: Microsoft Refuses to support
ebXML
>Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 11:16:07 -0800
>
>As to the Adoption Update, we plan another release this quarter as we
>are finding out even more implementations, pilots and plans.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Monica J. Martin
>Program Manager
>Drake Certivo, Inc.
>208.585.5946
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Zachary Alexander [mailto:zack2@cris.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 8:03 AM
>To: Fraser Goffin; ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
>Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] Microsoft Refuses to support ebXML
>
>
>Fraser,
>
>I would read the ebXML adoption document before you respond. It can be
>found
>at  http://www.ebxml.org/ebxml_jmt/index.htm#documents. <Fraser> While
>most
>of the industry is aligned behind SOAP, WSDL and UDDI, only Sun is
>championing ebXML while Microsoft refuses to support it.</Fraser> I
>would
>strongly caution against this statement. IMHO, the current market is
way
>to
>fragmented to make a blanket statement like this. I think that user
>communities are behind ebXML and I would always put my money were the
>users
>are.
>
>There are technical concerns being voiced against each of the
>technologies
>that you have listed. SOAP, WSDL, UDDI are technologies that grew out a
>need
>to extend portal services because vendors were losing money. I would
>agree
>that most of the software industry's marketing dollars are behind SOAP,
>WSDL, UDDI.  But just because you build it doesn't mean they will come.
>The
>applications that are built still need to address the needs and
concerns
>of
>the users. Anecdote: the EDIers still have there jobs, while the
>dotcomers
>lost theirs.
>
>zack
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fraser Goffin [mailto:goffinf@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:03 AM
>To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
>Subject: [ebxml-dev] Microsoft Refuses to support ebXML
>
>
>All,
>
>sorry for the attention grabbing and slightly imflamatory title but it
>is
>something that has been said to me a number of times over the past year
>or
>so.
>
>I am currently involved in a major project whose objective is to
provide
>a
>very significant industry portal for accessing web services for a
>partical
>market sector in the UK.
>
>Part of the process is to define the web service interface
specification
>that will be used. In this context, ebXML MS (v2.0c) is one of the
>proposals
>for message 'packaging'.
>
>I have just received the latest specification which rules out the use
of
>ebXML MS (although I think the author is a bit confused about what
>specifications he's referring to), and sites a number of grounds for
>this. I
>have no particular issue with not using ebXML MS but I do have to admit
>to a
>degree or irritation about some of the comments made.
>
>There are many things that I could say about this particular section of
>the
>document but I am somewhat sensitized to the particular debate and
>personalities in this project and I need to be as objective and
>dis-passionate as I can be (not easy). So, I would very much welcome
>comments from you guys, since you have no special axe to grind about
>this
>implementation per se.
>
>I want to be sure about that any comments I do make are factually
>correct or
>are based on sound assumptions. BTW - the text is quite short
>
>I do have to respond very quickly to this (by 6th Jan !), so I would
>prefer
>it if you would copy your comments directly to my email address please
>:-
>
>goffinf@hotmail.com
>
>Many thanks
>
>Fraser.
>
>--- Text from ebXML section follows (its quite short) :-
>
>ebXML arose from the EDI community in an effort to reduce costs EDI by
>using
>the Internet in place of expensive VANs.
>
>ebXML is an international initiative established by UN/CEFACT (United
>Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation) and OASIS (Organization for the
>Advancement of Structured Information Standards).
>
>ebXML is an open standard XML business specification that enables XML
to
>be
>used in a consistent manner for the exchange of all electronic business
>data. The phase 1 spec was published in May 2001.  Late in the drafting
>cycle, ebXML adopted SOAP + attachments as it's transport.
>
>EbXML has a business process information model (BPIM) and uses UML and
>UMM
>for process modelling.
>
>The primary objective of ebXML is to lower the barrier to entry to
>electronic business in order to facilitate trade, particularly with
>respect
>to small businesses and developing nations.
>
>The ebXML Transport Routing and Packaging specification released
>February
>2002, provided support for SOAP 1.1.
>
>There is huge overlap between the technologies used by ebXML and SOAP,
>WSDL
>and UDDI.  However the goals of ebXML are more ambitious based as it is
>on
>standardising business processes.  This may prove to be it's undoing as
>companies tend to have different business processes and generally do
not
>change them without very good economic justification.
>
>While most of the industry is aligned behind SOAP, WSDL and UDDI, only
>Sun
>is championing ebXML while Microsoft refuses to support it.
>
>There is considerable momentum behind the SOAP, WSDL, UDDI camp and new
>standards are emerging all the time.  For instance Business Process
>Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS) specification was
released
>recently with the aim of replacing IBM's Web Services Flow Language
>(WSFL)
>and Microsoft's XLANG.
>
>Another view of ebXML is that it is a top down approach whereas SOAP is
>a
>bottom up approach.  The consensus view seems to be that lightweight
>approach adopted by SOAP is more likely to achieve critical mass across
>the
>industry and that it will quickly add the superior features of ebXML.
>SOAP
>+ attachments is therefore the recommended approach for xxx.
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
>http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail